Supreme Court Rules on Customs Valuation: Turnkey Contracts and Import Duties

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), ruled on a significant dispute concerning customs valuation under the Customs Act, 1962. The case addressed whether certain post-importation services and design fees should be included in the assessable value of imported goods when calculating customs duties. The ruling has a major impact on how turnkey contracts and project imports are assessed for customs purposes.

Background of the Case

The case involved SAIL’s import of equipment for modernizing its Durgapur Steel Plant in West Bengal. The imports were made under two contracts signed in 1989 and 1990, which were part of a larger tender package for plant modernization.

SAIL’s contracts were with foreign and Indian entities forming a consortium. The contracts involved the import of plant equipment along with design, engineering, supervision, and commissioning services. SAIL sought project import benefits under the Customs Act.

However, customs authorities argued that additional charges related to design, engineering, and post-importation services should be included in the transaction value for duty assessment. The key issue was whether such costs formed an integral part of the price of imported goods or were separate from them.

Key Legal Issues Raised

Should post-importation services, such as design and commissioning, be included in the value of imported goods for customs duty calculations?
Did SAIL’s contracts qualify as ‘turnkey contracts,’ making the entire contract value subject to customs duty?
Was the tribunal correct in excluding design and supervision charges from the assessable value?

Arguments by the Appellant (Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata)

The customs department contended:

The contracts were turnkey agreements, meaning all aspects of supply, design, and execution were interconnected.
The imported equipment could not function without the accompanying design and engineering services, making these an essential part of the import.
Under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, any payment made as a condition of sale of imported goods must be included in the assessable value.
The tribunal erred in distinguishing between imported equipment and post-importation services, as both were part of an integrated contract.

Arguments by the Respondent (SAIL)

SAIL defended its position by arguing:

The disputed charges related to post-importation activities such as site supervision, commissioning, and technical assistance, which are not dutiable.
The contract allowed SAIL to source design and engineering services separately, indicating that these were not conditions of sale for the imported goods.
Under the Interpretative Note to Rule 4 of the 1988 Rules, charges for construction, erection, and maintenance undertaken after importation must be excluded from the transaction value.
There was no legal basis to classify the contracts as ‘turnkey’ projects for customs valuation, as they consisted of distinct supplies and services.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court examined the statutory provisions and previous rulings on customs valuation.

The Court ruled that the design and engineering fees were for post-importation activities and should not be included in the assessable value of imported equipment.
“The expression ‘condition of sale’ under Rule 9(1)(e) cannot be stretched to include post-importation services unless there is a clear contractual obligation tying them to the import,” the Court noted.
The tribunal correctly applied the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. case, which held that technical documentation and supervision costs unrelated to manufacturing of imported goods are not dutiable.
The Court rejected the customs department’s argument that turnkey contracts automatically include all associated costs for customs valuation.

As a result, the Court upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)’s ruling in favor of SAIL and dismissed the customs department’s appeal.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Post-importation services are not dutiable: Design, commissioning, and supervision charges undertaken after importation are excluded from customs valuation.
Turnkey contracts must be carefully assessed: The mere classification of a contract as ‘turnkey’ does not automatically make all associated costs dutiable.
Legal clarity on ‘condition of sale’: Only charges directly related to the price of imported goods should be included in customs valuation.
Interpretative Notes to Customs Rules are binding: The Court reinforced the importance of following guidelines in valuation disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata vs. SAIL sets an important precedent in customs law. By ruling that post-importation services are not part of the assessable value, the Court has provided much-needed clarity for importers dealing with project contracts.

The judgment ensures that companies are not unfairly burdened with higher customs duties on expenses that do not relate to the price of imported goods. It also affirms that classification as a turnkey contract does not automatically justify the inclusion of all costs in customs valuation.

This ruling will guide future disputes concerning customs valuation and reinforce the principle that taxation should be based on clear legal provisions rather than broad interpretations.

Petitioner Name: Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata.
Respondent Name: Steel Authority of India Ltd..
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Kolkata, West Bengal.
Judgment Date: 27-04-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Commissioner of Cust vs Steel Authority of I Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-04-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Income Tax Disputes
See all petitions in Customs and Excise
See all petitions in Banking Regulations
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category